{"id":154039,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-11T07:36:51","modified_gmt":"2016-07-11T02:06:51","slug":"mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/5196\/2006\t 6\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 5196 of 2006\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local  Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a  substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit  is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMOHAMMED\n@ NURMOHMAD KURESHI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMOHAMMED\nASIF ABDUL KAYUB SHAIKH &amp; 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAV PRAJAPATI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR\nSANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 16\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.<br \/>\nHeard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati on behalf of appellant<br \/>\nclaimant and learned advocate Mr.Sandip Shah appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent No.3   Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.<br \/>\n This Appeal is preferred by claimant for Rs.5.00  lacs challenging<br \/>\naward passed by Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P.No.507 of 2001<br \/>\ndecided on 23rd August, 2006, Exh.19 where  Claims<br \/>\nTribunal has awarded Rs.1,45,800\/- with 8% interest in favour of<br \/>\nappellant   claimant.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.<br \/>\nLearned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati submitted that Claims Tribunal has<br \/>\ncommitted gross error in not awarding reasonable and just amount of<br \/>\ncompensation in favour of claimant, therefore, present appeal is<br \/>\nfiled.  He submitted that 25% negligence which has been decided by<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal without any evidence on record and therefore accident<br \/>\nis occurred not due to contributory negligence of appellant but it<br \/>\nwas sole negligence of respondent No.1.  He also submitted that<br \/>\nfuture prospective income which has been decided Rs.1,05,400\/- being<br \/>\ncalculation error because Claims Tribunal has not applied mind.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that for pain, shock and sufferings only Rs.12,000\/- has<br \/>\nbeen awarded but claimant is entitled some more amount for pain,<br \/>\nshock and sufferings.  Therefore he submitted that some reasonable<br \/>\namount of compensation in respect to each head  may be enhanced in<br \/>\nfavour of appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.<br \/>\n Learned advocate Mr.Sandip Shah appearing on behalf of Insurance<br \/>\nCompany submitted that Claims Tribunal has properly examined matter<br \/>\nand decided it on basis of evidence and rightly awarded a reasonable<br \/>\namount of compensation in favour of claimant for that Claims Tribunal<br \/>\nhas not committed any error which requires interference by this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<br \/>\n I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and I<br \/>\nhave also perused award passed by Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad.<br \/>\nAccident occurred on 1.7.2000 at about 17.45 hours. Claimant was<br \/>\ngoing for calculation of his business from his house on his<br \/>\nmotorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-1-EE-6918 and when he reached<br \/>\nopposite to Gujarat Samachar Circle and he was taking the turn<br \/>\ntowards BJP Office, at that time, one motorcycle which was driven by<br \/>\nopponent No.2 came from Dinbai Tower and opponent No.2 has driven his<br \/>\nmotorcycle in rash and negligent manner and in full speed and dashed<br \/>\nwith motorcycle of claimant. The claimant was fallen on the road and<br \/>\nhe sustained injuries on right leg.  The opponent No.2 had raced his<br \/>\nmotorcycle and claimant has seen the Registration No. of his<br \/>\nmotorcycle which is GJ-1-CA-2355.  The incident took place due to<br \/>\nnegligence on part of respondent No.2 who has driven his vehicle in<br \/>\nrash and negligent manner.  The claimant sustained serious injuries<br \/>\non right leg and one Mr.Amitbhai who is residing in the same flat in<br \/>\nwhich claimant is staying had taken claimant to V.S.Hospital in<br \/>\nauto-rickshaw, where x-ray of right leg was taken in which  fracture<br \/>\nis being seen and  operation was  fixed on Tuesday.  Thereafter<br \/>\nclaimant was admitted in hospital of Dr.Manoj Joshi, where he was<br \/>\noperated and given treatment as an indoor patient for 20 days.<br \/>\nThereafter he was advised to take rest for period of six months.<br \/>\nDuring that period he had occasionally visited hospital of Dr.Manoj<br \/>\nJoshi for the purpose of dressing and he has spend Rs.40,000\/- for<br \/>\nmedicines and medical treatment.  Claimant was having business of<br \/>\nbuilding material and construction earning Rs.15,000\/- per month and<br \/>\nhe got 28% disability and due to that he suffered in business of<br \/>\ncontract and he was using right leg and due to injury and permanent<br \/>\ndisability  he was not able to do work. The reply is filed by<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 at Exh.22 and Insurance Company has filed reply<br \/>\nExh.17. Thereafter issues have been framed by Claims Tribunal Exh.14.<br \/>\n Issue of negligence has been considered by Claims Tribunal in<br \/>\nparagraph 10 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> After<br \/>\n\thearing the learned Advocate of both the sides, if we peruse Exh.26,<br \/>\n\tthe deposition of the petitioner, he has narrated the incident in<br \/>\n\tdetail. Moreover, the complaint at Exh.47 also supports the case of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and if we peruse the cross-examination of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, he has stated that in the incident both the vehicles<br \/>\n\twere coming from opposite direction and he has seen the opposite<br \/>\n\tvehicle from 10 ft. to 15 ft. away. He has also admitted that after<br \/>\n\tthe incident, he and the opponent No.2 fallen on the road.  Thus, it<br \/>\n\tcan be said that the petitioner has seen the opposite vehicle from<br \/>\n\t10 ft. to 15 ft. away. Moreover, if we peruse the panchnama of place<br \/>\n\tof offence at Exh.48, but it is not showing the real picture of the<br \/>\n\tincident.  In these circumstances, considering the fact that the<br \/>\n\tincident took place at 17.45 hours, both the vehicles are of the<br \/>\n\tsame cadre i.e. motorcycle and both the vehicles were coming from<br \/>\n\tthe opposite direction and they dashed with each other.  Moreover,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner has seen the opposite vehicle from 10 ft. to 15 ft.<br \/>\n\tIn these circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner has not<br \/>\n\ttaken step to prevent the incident.  In these circumstances, there<br \/>\n\tis some negligence of the petitioner and considering the fact, I am<br \/>\n\tof the opinion that 75% negligence is required to be held on the<br \/>\n\tpart of the opponent No.2 and 25% negligence on the part of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner.  Hence, I find the issue No.1 and 2 accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal has committed gross error in coming to conclusion<br \/>\nthat there is 25% contributory negligence of claimant in absence of<br \/>\nany evidence which found on record.  Panchnama Exh.48 not giving real<br \/>\npicture of accident.  Merely submission was made by claimant before<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal that he has seen the opposite vehicle from 10 ft. to<br \/>\n15 ft., but in absence of evidence of respondent No.2 who was not<br \/>\nexamined before Claims Tribunal, the conclusion of Claims Tribunal<br \/>\nthat claimant has not taken steps to prevent the accident and<br \/>\ntherefore there is some negligence of claimant is contrary to<br \/>\nevidence which are on record.  Therefore finding in respect to<br \/>\nnegligence decided by Claims Tribunal, 25% contributory negligence is<br \/>\nrequired to be set aside because it was a case of sole negligence of<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 who was a driver of opposite motorcycle.  Therefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, there is no contributory negligence of<br \/>\nclaimant is proved before Claims Tribunal. Therefore claimant is<br \/>\nentitled amount of compensation without deducting 25% contributory<br \/>\nnegligence as decided by Claims Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal has committed a calculation error in paragraph 14.<br \/>\nThe Claims Tribunal from evidence on record produced by claimant,<br \/>\nRs.4,000\/- income has been assessed and 14.4% disability as body as<br \/>\nwhole has been accepted.  The monthly loss of income comes to Rs.576<br \/>\nand yearly it comes to Rs.6,912\/-, and considering 17 multiplier<br \/>\nlooking to age group of claimant 30 to 35 years then the net amount<br \/>\ncomes to Rs.1,17,504\/-, instead of that Claims Tribunal has awarded<br \/>\namount Rs.1,05,400\/-.  Therefore claimant is entitled difference of<br \/>\nRs.12,104\/- from respondent.  The Claims Tribunal has also committed<br \/>\ngross error in awarding amount Rs.12,000\/- for head of pain, shock<br \/>\nand sufferings.  Looking to evidence on record and operation was<br \/>\ncarried out by claimant in  hospital of Dr.Manoj Joshi and plate was<br \/>\ninserted and was discharged from hospital  on 12.7.2000 and also<br \/>\nconsidering injury of fracture of right leg and initially he was<br \/>\nadmitted in V.S.Hospital and thereafter he was transferred to<br \/>\nDr.Manoj Joshi hospital, therefore, Rs.12,000\/- which has been<br \/>\nawarded on pain, shock and suffering is on lower side.  According to<br \/>\nmy opinion, claimant is entitled Rs.30,000\/- being amount of<br \/>\ncompensation for pain, shock and sufferings.  Accordingly enhanced<br \/>\namount comes to Rs.18,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid discussions and observations made by this Court<br \/>\nafter considering submissions made by both learned advocates, the<br \/>\nenhanced amount comes to Rs.12,104\/- for future loss of income,<br \/>\nRs.18,000\/- for enhanced amount for pain, shock and sufferings and<br \/>\nRs.48,600\/- which was deducted for 25% negligence on part of claimant<br \/>\nis now the claimant is entitled Rs.48,600\/-, which total amount comes<br \/>\nto Rs.78,704\/- which recovered from respondent   Insurance Company<br \/>\nwith 8% interest from date of filing claim petition till realisation<br \/>\nof this petition with proportionate cost from opponents jointly and<br \/>\nseverally.  Accordingly, award passed by Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad,<br \/>\nchallenged in present appeal is required to be modified as referred<br \/>\nabove and appeal is partly allowed with a direction to respondents to<br \/>\npay Rs.78,704\/- with 8% interest from date of claim petition to<br \/>\ndeposit before Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, within a period of two<br \/>\nmonths from the date of receipt of copy of present order.  After<br \/>\nrealising  said amount from the respondents, it is directed to Claims<br \/>\nTribunal, Ahmedabad to pay entire amount by Account Payee Cheque in<br \/>\nname of Mohammed @ Nurmohammed Kureshi after proper verification.\n<\/p>\n<p>( H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J. )<\/p>\n<p>syed\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/5196\/2006 6\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 5196 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1456,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1456,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010","name":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T02:06:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-vs-mohammed-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammed vs Mohammed on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}